All the stadium stories you missed since my last roundup while you were rushing to see every Oscar-nominated film before Sunday's awards show and getting a head start on next year.

In San Diego, it was revealed that four months after Mayor Jerry Sanders trumpeted his hiring of a New York financial investment firm to figure out how to pay for a new Chargers stadium, the advisers are still not under contract.

"This has allowed the firm, Lazard Ltd., potentially to rack up bills without any public understanding of its duties or ultimate cost," voiceofsandiego.org's Liam Dillon wrote. "The arrangement also could violate city policies on work performed without a contract or approval from City Attorney Jan Goldsmith — the second time Sanders has brushed up against contracting rules on a high-profile stadium issue in recent months." The first time, you'll recall, was the Snapdragon stadium snafu.

Sanders' spokesman Darren Pudgil told me in October that Lazard Ltd. was being retained for less than $250,000, most of it to be paid contingent on a deal being worked out with the Chargers. He said then the contract was being finalized.

Last week, he said again it was being finalized. "I’ll let you know when it is done," he emailed. "The city has not paid Lazard a dime." I've submitted a California Public Records Act request for communications and other documents related to the Lazard contract. It's similar to a request the City Attorney's Office made of the Mayor's Office in late January, which presumably was accommodated quickly, so I can't imagine it would take too long to respond to my request. I'll let you know what I find.

In Santa Clara, the 49ers continue barreling toward a new stadium. Tuesday, the Santa Clara City Council will consider a lease that would require construction to begin in 120 days. The ground lease provides that the city get $196 million in rent over 40 years, though Mike Rosenberg of the San Jose Mercury News noted that after inflation this amounts to about $34 million in actual dollars. The city would get more money if the Oakland Raiders were to move in. Also, Rosenberg added, a second lease agreement to be considered in March will detail how much rent -- expected to be about $30 million a year -- the 49ers will pay the Stadium Authority to play in the actual stadium.

According to 1590 KLIV radio, the lease to be reviewed Tuesday stipulates that the team's ground rent would start at $180,000 a year and increase by $35,000 annually until year 11 when it will increase to $1 million and start rising by $100,000 every five years. (An aside: Why are such leases always so backloaded?)

That kind of cash is a lot of money to you or I, but to the 49ers? Not so much, especially if Daniel Kaplan's story in Sports Business Journal is on the money. Subscribers can read all the details, but the publicly-available first paragraph says it all: Sources say the 49ers project that they could raise half a billion dollars in seat licenses at their new stadium in Santa Clara, an amount that would be the second-most of any U.S. team, behind only the Dallas Cowboys.

The San Francisco Business Times' Eric Young publicized the story, noting the team has already raised $79 million from seat license sales and that it needs to raise $200 million to meet requirements for an $850 million loan that will cover much of the stadium's cost.

Some interesting California perspective is included, as well. Young wrote, "For the 49ers, the newspaper reported, the large seat license estimate underscores why the team can undertake such a significant bank loan, with the wealth in Northern California appearing to have made the first new football stadium in the state since the 1960s possible."

As for the team's expressed hope that the stadium will open in time for the 2014 season, 49ers President Gideon Yu distanced himself from that a bit in an interview with the San Jose Mercury-News' Tim Kawakami. The reporter has offered to buy some 49ers brass lunch if the stadium is open that year. Here's what Yu said:

I think you can say that we’ll know for sure by the end of this year whether we’re going to be able to make it by ’14. But the goal is not to absolutely to move in there by ’14.... I want you to lose the bet. But the most important thing is we can live on our promise to get in there by ’15, which is what we told our fans, what we told our stakeholders, that we’re going to make that happen.

Best Case Scenario: The Raiders stay in their current home beyond 2013 and Oakland develops a financing plan for a proposed multi-use "Sports Village" development that would include a new stadium on the current Coliseum site.

Worst Case Scenario: The Raiders occupy Los Angeles.

Forecast: With no financing on the horizon for Oakland's fantasy "Sports Village," the most sensible idea is for the Raiders to share the Santa Clara stadium, either as tenants of the 49ers or as business partners. Or perhaps the Raiders would sign a relatively short 10-year lease, so the team could become portable again in 2024 if Davis wants his own stadium.

In Los Angeles, one of the city's mayoral candidates said he supports a downtown football stadium but doesn't think the City Council is taking enough of a leadership role on the project, reported Dakota Smith of the L.A. Daily News.

"Unless there is transparency, unless the community itself can weigh in and see what's being done, I won't have confidence that (the stadium deal) is being done and executed in a way that makes you feel comfortable either from an aesthetics or community impact point of view," candidate Austin Buetner said.

In Minnesota, the Vikings, if you believe owner Zygi Wilf, appear "very close on hammering a deal right now for the Minneapolis location at Metrodome." Gov. Mark Dayton, though, said he has stopped using the word "optimistic" with this project.

Even if an agreement for a Minneapolis stadium is reached, the plan has a long way to go.

The team came to two similar "term sheet" agreements with Ramsey County officials on the Arden Hills project, but that was derailed over objections to the financing plan.

Part of the holdup in Minnesota is the exact location of the stadium. (An aside: Isn't it silly that the Chargers tried to nail down such a small detail like that first?) Another hangup for the Vikings? A Minneapolis City Council majority opposes the mayor's plan to pay the city's share of a $1 billion stadium using existing hospitality taxes, absent a citywide referendum, Minneapolis Star Tribune reporter Eric Roper wrote.

In addition to that seven-member bloc, another person opposed to the stadium deal is Ralph Nader, identified by the Star Tribune as a perennial presidential candidate. Nader wrote in a letter to the governor and elected officials of Minneapolis that he wants to stop an "egregious public handout." He wrote:

Do you want a safe bet? Zygi Wilf (or whoever the Vikings’ owner might be in the years ahead) will be back in 15-20 years demanding a refurbished or new stadium.

In St. Louis, the discussion over where the Rams play is breaking new ground. "No template for how to resolve dome lease," one headline shouted. The story by St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporters Kathleen Nelson and Matthew Hathaway detailed what they call "another debate with no clear precedent: what share of the renovation should be covered by public money and what share should come from the team."

Also, the Rams' London situation is resolved ... for at least a year, Hathaway reported. In exchange for playing one of its eight regular season home games next year in London, the Rams will pay seasonal workers at the Edward Jones Dome their hourly wages for the lost game and will allow the building to be used more often for conventions during the football season. Still to be hashed out is what the tradeoff will be if and when the team plays games overseas in 2013 and 2014.

In Jacksonville, new owner Shahid Khan said he is "in training to be Jacksonville's No. 1 salesperson." He has his work cut out for him. He told a group of Northeast Florida business executives that he traveled abroad recently to Japan, England and Germany and gave away Jaguars jerseys, reported David Bauerlein of the Florida Times-Union. Those receiving the jerseys? They asked “Where is Jacksonville?”

For those who continue to harbor suspicions the Jags are headed west at some point, the team's new president said, "I'm moving to Jacksonville to stay in Jacksonville." Post-Dispatch reporter Derek Goold wrote that President Jim Lamping's response to that concern is "more direct than (Rams owner Stan) Kroenke has given when asked about the Rams' commitment to St. Louis."

In other NFL business news, I offer you one micro and one macro story. First, the big picture. Forbes SportsMoney interviewed JPMorgan executive Scott Milleisen about the possibility of expansion in the National Football League. "I'm very bullish on the NFL," the banker said. "I think it's a good bet." He said that a new franchise's value might range from $760 million (for the Jacksonville Jaguars) to $1.1 billion (which the Miami Dolphins sold for not long ago) and maybe even more in the country's second-largest media market. He also noted that it takes so much equity (upwards of $600 million) to buy a team these days that not many have changed hands. Interesting interview for the wonks out there.

Lastly, the Cleveland Browns (never before mentioned in this column) are in the pages of the Cleveland Leader for clamoring to extend a sin tax to help make improvements to the team's stadium.

As always, let me know what you thought and what I missed. And for more timely stadium coverage, factoids and fun, follow me on Twitter @SDuncovered.